...is that after all the pixel peeping and academic comparisons of IQ, in the actual image sizes that the owners publish and print their personal pictures for consumption, the incremental IQ offered by the D7100 is virtually non-existent and unecessary.

Really, Jared? Did you have to go to dishonest? Is that really a collegial Canadian way to interact with your fellow photographers, some of whom have been comparing pics since way before you were born?

What you really meant to say is that you can't see a difference and don't think anyone else should be able to do so either. If you can't see a difference, fine and well, but don't try to drag down the rest of us who can.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm often not honest with myself when contemplating new camera purchases. My heart wants the highest possible resolution but my head tells me that I rarely email or post online images that are larger than 1,200 pixels across and that I only need to print 8x10's or at most 12x18 on rare occassions.

IMO, the argument that more resolution offers more cropping is weak. Why not invest in some better telephoto lenses if you are that serious about IQ? Or why not learn to compose better in-camera so you don't have crop afterwards?

I still maintain that if you downsample images from a 12MP, 16MP or 24MP to even a large JPG for web presentation that the differences will be negligible to non-existent. If they are noticed, then maybe you need to consider why the viewer would be pixel peeping rather than focusing on the subject matter.

Reilly, cameralabs is among the most respected photography review sites there is, and I've never seen this Guy with a testing agenda. At this point you appear to be getting angry with anyone who holds even a slightly different opinion from yourself. Making absolute categorical statements doesn't make them correct.

I have to say that the review didn't impress me either. I felt the review was shallow and did not in any way explore the full potential of what it has to offer. Reilly is right on this one.

Then this begs the question: In what way was the review lacking and what aspect of photography do you do that the review could have covered in more detail?

Reilly, cameralabs is among the most respected photography review sites there is, and I've never seen this Guy with a testing agenda. At this point you appear to be getting angry with anyone who holds even a slightly different opinion from yourself. Making absolute categorical statements doesn't make them correct.

I have to say that the review didn't impress me either. I felt the review was shallow and did not in any way explore the full potential of what it has to offer. Reilly is right on this one.

Clearly for Guys like you, and Reilly, no review that doesn't state that the D7100 is flawless, and everything else crap, isn't going to satisfy you. The cameralabs review was fair, realistic, and very complimentary of the D7100. The fact that he compared two other cameras as being nearly as good seems to be more than you can stomach.

Reilly, cameralabs is among the most respected photography review sites there is, and I've never seen this Guy with a testing agenda. At this point you appear to be getting angry with anyone who holds even a slightly different opinion from yourself. Making absolute categorical statements doesn't make them correct.

Sorry if it came over that way. We do tend to get worked up around here. Let ye without sin cast the first stone, etc. I think you have been enjoying the back and forth more than most if the number of threads you have started on this very subject are any indication. As well, we have seen a variety of categorical statements in this thread and many others. The underlying or overt premise of some of these posts is that the Nikon is simply doing a marketing gimmick and that everything is the same, we're seeing things that aren't there, we're being dishonest with ourselves, blah blah blah.

Well, I can state categorically or otherwise that things are indeed different and better, all things considered, as many of us have already noted. I shall have no hesitation in so saying, I hope in a manner consistent with Mako's blood pressure :^)

I'd never even heard of Cameralabs 'til now. Everyone who knows Nikon DSLRs well knows that the jpgs are okay at best, but not representative of the best the camera can produce. The respect factor you mention would have increased if he had shot raw and worked with the files a few minutes longer.

You're on to something there, Jim. The D90/300 was pretty noisy indeed past about ISO 800. The D7000 allowed one to shoot way low and pull shadows as never before in the APSC realm, and it's an endearing quality for sure. The D7100 isn't a five stop shadow pull machine, but really, the other benefits kind of swamp any of that. The focus seems very good. It's been kind of a refreshing change from the relentless fusillade of batteries and deodorant cans that greeted the introduction of the D7000. Some of the trolls and the ensuing pie fights are legend.

Speaking of refreshing, if any of you haven't, check out Rudy's bifs taken with the D7100 and the humble 70-300VR. Jim's stuff is great and shows what can be done with this camera from distance. You know a veteran bird guy with heavy artillery is going to deliver, but it's been nice to see a relative newcomers put up such good work with a consumer zoom.

...

And I agree - Rudy's shots are great encouragement for us low-rent lens types.

Thanks for the Kudos guys, but I want to add just a little something extra to this part of the discussion so that you don't think my decision to go with the 70-300 VR was strictly motivated by financial concerns, far from it.

I had a bit of a health issue a couple of years ago and one of the outcomes was that I became a daily avid walker after a lifetime of hating walking (I was a hockey, skiing type). Now I walk 4-5 kilometers every day in all weather conditions and being able to walk 5-K with my camera is part of my total "outdoor-photography" experience, and it's why I bought the feather-weight Panasonic FZ200 bridge camera last Fall.

Well, I'm delighted to report that the D7100 combined with the 70-300 VR are still light-weight enough that even my 63-year old legs and back (not the best one in the neighbourhood) can quite handily manage 4-5 kilometers at a brisk pace without getting tired or sore. This is a crucial consideration for me and why I'm really committed to making the this zoom lens sing. This doesn't fall under the rubric of sensor physics, but it too is in the total decision-making mix.

Clearly for Guys like you, and Reilly, no review that doesn't state that the D7100 is flawless, and everything else crap, isn't going to satisfy you. The cameralabs review was fair, realistic, and very complimentary of the D7100. The fact that he compared two other cameras as being nearly as good seems to be more than you can stomach.

Oh, please. The D90 is almost as good, if you want to spin it that way. The OM5 is as good shooting jpg for half the weight and size. We're on a mission to get the best IQ we can, and we can improve on the previous generation, that's what technology is all about and what makes it so interesting. That's what we do here.

Talking to the Nikon reps at NAB...they went without a filter in the D7100 for not the reason most would think. They learned from the D800E that none was required even though the math said they should need one for all the old obvious reasons like moire and such. Because of what the learned from the D800e...they simply didn't put one in the D7100 because there simply was no need...It wasn't to bump resolution.

Yes, sales of the D800E were probably higher than Nikon initially expected. In that sense an effective AA filter was indeed not needed.

Another reason to drop the filter in the D7100 was of course that it costs money to make them.

The big question now is what Canon will do. There is tremendous pressure from "enthusiasts" on them to also drop the filter in upcoming cameras. IMO, current pixel densities are not yet quite high enough to do so.

Reilly, cameralabs is among the most respected photography review sites there is, and I've never seen this Guy with a testing agenda. At this point you appear to be getting angry with anyone who holds even a slightly different opinion from yourself. Making absolute categorical statements doesn't make them correct.

Sorry if it came over that way. We do tend to get worked up around here. Let ye without sin cast the first stone, etc. I think you have been enjoying the back and forth more than most if the number of threads you have started on this very subject are any indication. As well, we have seen a variety of categorical statements in this thread and many others. The underlying or overt premise of some of these posts is that the Nikon is simply doing a marketing gimmick and that everything is the same, we're seeing things that aren't there, we're being dishonest with ourselves, blah blah blah.

Well, I can state categorically or otherwise that things are indeed different and better, all things considered, as many of us have already noted. I shall have no hesitation in so saying, I hope in a manner consistent with Mako's blood pressure :^)

I'd never even heard of Cameralabs 'til now. Everyone who knows Nikon DSLRs well knows that the jpgs are okay at best, but not representative of the best the camera can produce. The respect factor you mention would have increased if he had shot raw and worked with the files a few minutes longer.

In Gordon's defense, he did shoot RAW and employ an optimized LR-only rendering strategy, like most photogs do. So in this context his review site does represent a fair swath of the photographic hobby, in fact what would be commonly called the "serious" contingent. That being said, I do think we're retreating to our respective corners, and I'm trying to pull us all out from those comfortable places into an area where we might be able to come to some greater perspective.

Reilly's point is well taken. Microcontrast and detail will have beneficial roles to play as they improve the RAW data quality, and this leads to improved rendering, even downsized, when it's required. As much as I'm impressed by Reilly's work on the studio shots and the D7100's performance in this milieu, I've even more impressed by what Jim and especially Rudy are turning out. Jim, showing what's possible with the very best optics and technique, Rudy showing what those of us with more constrained budgets, skills, and subjects can reasonably expect. Neither are snapshooting, as many of the first-shots now being posted are. The results from this latter category are as to be expected; nothing fantastic.

A while back someone posted a 4 shot downsized series including the D40, D300, D7000, and D7100. On cursory inspection the D40 shot looked great - punchy, apparently really sharp, all that. The others looked rather more restrained in comparison - but they were more accurate. I finally understood why my friend with a good eye and a D40 always came back from a flower venue with such attractive, punchy, contrasty shots seemingly effortlessly...his camera wasn't picking up everything mine was, and I had to work the file to get similar results. But that file let me do more.

We need to choose the tool based on our desires and capabilities. Today's best cameras are capable of better images, but they demand more of us to do so. No different that with any other pursuit.

I spent considerable time playing with the in camera settings of the D7100 raws from IR using CNX2. I got okay results at best, using several different profiles and settings. The in-camera sharpening sucks bigtime. Correctly processed raws simply blow them away. I was kind of hopeful the OOCs would be better than the previous gen, but that hasn't happened. Boo hoo! Firmware update!

...is that after all the pixel peeping and academic comparisons of IQ, in the actual image sizes that the owners publish and print their personal pictures for consumption, the incremental IQ offered by the D7100 is virtually non-existent and unecessary.

Really, Jared? Did you have to go to dishonest? Is that really a collegial Canadian way to interact with your fellow photographers, some of whom have been comparing pics since way before you were born?

What you really meant to say is that you can't see a difference and don't think anyone else should be able to do so either. If you can't see a difference, fine and well, but don't try to drag down the rest of us who can.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm often not honest with myself when contemplating new camera purchases. My heart wants the highest possible resolution but my head tells me that I rarely email or post online images that are larger than 1,200 pixels across and that I only need to print 8x10's or at most 12x18 on rare occassions.

1200 across isn't the recipe for photographic wonderfulness these days. At that size, there would indeed be enough throwing out of data to bring any camera to its knees. 1920 is too small as well. 4K monitors are right around the corner. That will show the differences even more than 2180p already does.

IMO, the argument that more resolution offers more cropping is weak. Why not invest in some better telephoto lenses if you are that serious about IQ? Or why not learn to compose better in-camera so you don't have crop afterwards?

Next better is the 80-400VR @ $2700 or the 500VR is the main reason. Pixels are cheap!

Reilly, cameralabs is among the most respected photography review sites there is, and I've never seen this Guy with a testing agenda. At this point you appear to be getting angry with anyone who holds even a slightly different opinion from yourself. Making absolute categorical statements doesn't make them correct.

I have to say that the review didn't impress me either. I felt the review was shallow and did not in any way explore the full potential of what it has to offer. Reilly is right on this one.

Clearly for Guys like you, and Reilly, no review that doesn't state that the D7100 is flawless, and everything else crap, isn't going to satisfy you. The cameralabs review was fair, realistic, and very complimentary of the D7100. The fact that he compared two other cameras as being nearly as good seems to be more than you can stomach.

Well that's baloney. I've already stated that at normal viewing distances etc, you wont necessarily see huge differences or indeed any at all between the D5200, D7000 unless the D7100 is driven by good glass and the correct techniques. I question any review that basis comparisons on jpegs out put from the camera and doesn't go any further. To get the best, one needs to have the skill to know how to take a sharp photograph in the first place and to be able to pp proficiently. Many reviews are akin to taking an exposed roll of ektachome to boots the chemist, and then say its crap.

-- hide signature --

They said it couldn't be done, so I encouraged my peers not to bother.HooRoo!

Reilly, cameralabs is among the most respected photography review sites there is, and I've never seen this Guy with a testing agenda. At this point you appear to be getting angry with anyone who holds even a slightly different opinion from yourself. Making absolute categorical statements doesn't make them correct.

Sorry if it came over that way. We do tend to get worked up around here. Let ye without sin cast the first stone, etc. I think you have been enjoying the back and forth more than most if the number of threads you have started on this very subject are any indication. As well, we have seen a variety of categorical statements in this thread and many others. The underlying or overt premise of some of these posts is that the Nikon is simply doing a marketing gimmick and that everything is the same, we're seeing things that aren't there, we're being dishonest with ourselves, blah blah blah.

Well, I can state categorically or otherwise that things are indeed different and better, all things considered, as many of us have already noted. I shall have no hesitation in so saying, I hope in a manner consistent with Mako's blood pressure :^)

I'd never even heard of Cameralabs 'til now. Everyone who knows Nikon DSLRs well knows that the jpgs are okay at best, but not representative of the best the camera can produce. The respect factor you mention would have increased if he had shot raw and worked with the files a few minutes longer.

In Gordon's defense, he did shoot RAW and employ an optimized LR-only rendering strategy, like most photogs do. So in this context his review site does represent a fair swath of the photographic hobby, in fact what would be commonly called the "serious" contingent. That being said, I do think we're retreating to our respective corners, and I'm trying to pull us all out from those comfortable places into an area where we might be able to come to some greater perspective.

Reilly's point is well taken. Microcontrast and detail will have beneficial roles to play as they improve the RAW data quality, and this leads to improved rendering, even downsized, when it's required. As much as I'm impressed by Reilly's work on the studio shots and the D7100's performance in this milieu, I've even more impressed by what Jim and especially Rudy are turning out. Jim, showing what's possible with the very best optics and technique, Rudy showing what those of us with more constrained budgets, skills, and subjects can reasonably expect. Neither are snapshooting, as many of the first-shots now being posted are. The results from this latter category are as to be expected; nothing fantastic.

A while back someone posted a 4 shot downsized series including the D40, D300, D7000, and D7100. On cursory inspection the D40 shot looked great - punchy, apparently really sharp, all that. The others looked rather more restrained in comparison - but they were more accurate. I finally understood why my friend with a good eye and a D40 always came back from a flower venue with such attractive, punchy, contrasty shots seemingly effortlessly...his camera wasn't picking up everything mine was, and I had to work the file to get similar results. But that file let me do more.

Never held D40 in my hands, so not sure I can defend it, but one thing I did notice is that the desire to pull every last detail from the shadows often results in lower overall contrast to the point of making for a more bland, less interesting shot. I often prefer to discard some uninteresting detail to get a punchier shot. Maybe that's just me. It is all a matter of degree of course.

We need to choose the tool based on our desires and capabilities. Today's best cameras are capable of better images, but they demand more of us to do so. No different that with any other pursuit.

Also, not sure I would agree with your other comment that D7000 made us less attentive to exposure by virtue of being so forgiving. To the contrary, I find D7000 less predictable with exposure than any other Nikon I ever used (all originally released earlier than D7000), and so in my opinion D7000 actually demands more fiddling with exposure, especially in bright conditions, than was needed before it appeared.

Reilly, cameralabs is among the most respected photography review sites there is, and I've never seen this Guy with a testing agenda. At this point you appear to be getting angry with anyone who holds even a slightly different opinion from yourself. Making absolute categorical statements doesn't make them correct.

Sorry if it came over that way. We do tend to get worked up around here. Let ye without sin cast the first stone, etc. I think you have been enjoying the back and forth more than most if the number of threads you have started on this very subject are any indication. As well, we have seen a variety of categorical statements in this thread and many others. The underlying or overt premise of some of these posts is that the Nikon is simply doing a marketing gimmick and that everything is the same, we're seeing things that aren't there, we're being dishonest with ourselves, blah blah blah.

Well, I can state categorically or otherwise that things are indeed different and better, all things considered, as many of us have already noted. I shall have no hesitation in so saying, I hope in a manner consistent with Mako's blood pressure :^)

I'd never even heard of Cameralabs 'til now. Everyone who knows Nikon DSLRs well knows that the jpgs are okay at best, but not representative of the best the camera can produce. The respect factor you mention would have increased if he had shot raw and worked with the files a few minutes longer.

I've seen several reviews at this point that comport very well with the cameralabs one, which by the way, is NOT a negative review. If there weren't at least some truth to whats being reported, why are so many reviewers saying essentially the same thing? I'm enjoying the arguments, but I'm not getting angry about it, because either way I win. If the D7100 is dramatically better, then I'll be getting one, and having the enjoyment of a new, and somewhat different camera. On the other hand, if I come to think, as I have been coming to think in recent days that the improvements are small then I'll be happy to save the $1200.00. In any event we can probably agree on one thing, which is that all three cameras are better than what Canon has on offer,no?

...is that after all the pixel peeping and academic comparisons of IQ, in the actual image sizes that the owners publish and print their personal pictures for consumption, the incremental IQ offered by the D7100 is virtually non-existent and unecessary.

Really, Jared? Did you have to go to dishonest? Is that really a collegial Canadian way to interact with your fellow photographers, some of whom have been comparing pics since way before you were born?

What you really meant to say is that you can't see a difference and don't think anyone else should be able to do so either. If you can't see a difference, fine and well, but don't try to drag down the rest of us who can.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm often not honest with myself when contemplating new camera purchases. My heart wants the highest possible resolution but my head tells me that I rarely email or post online images that are larger than 1,200 pixels across and that I only need to print 8x10's or at most 12x18 on rare occassions.

IMO, the argument that more resolution offers more cropping is weak. Why not invest in some better telephoto lenses if you are that serious about IQ? Or why not learn to compose better in-camera so you don't have crop afterwards?

I still maintain that if you downsample images from a 12MP, 16MP or 24MP to even a large JPG for web presentation that the differences will be negligible to non-existent. If they are noticed, then maybe you need to consider why the viewer would be pixel peeping rather than focusing on the subject matter.

Thats bacause deep down all of us in this forum are pixel peepers. Based on your response I would put you in the categoroy of a "closet pixel peeper".

Clearly for Guys like you, and Reilly, no review that doesn't state that the D7100 is flawless, and everything else crap, isn't going to satisfy you. The cameralabs review was fair, realistic, and very complimentary of the D7100. The fact that he compared two other cameras as being nearly as good seems to be more than you can stomach.

Oh, please. The D90 is almost as good, if you want to spin it that way. The OM5 is as good shooting jpg for half the weight and size. We're on a mission to get the best IQ we can, and we can improve on the previous generation, that's what technology is all about and what makes it so interesting. That's what we do

You did see the crops in the review right? I mean really, are all these testing sites just run by fools who don't know what they're doing unless they reach the conclusion you like. If you were just taking issue with my interpretations of the relative merits it would be one thing, but you're at issue with people who have no reason to misrepresent the facts. In fact I can't think of a single advantage cameralabs would have in doing that, quite the reverse. At any rate old man, calm down, and enjoy the debate there's no down side.

...is that after all the pixel peeping and academic comparisons of IQ, in the actual image sizes that the owners publish and print their personal pictures for consumption, the incremental IQ offered by the D7100 is virtually non-existent and unecessary.

Really, Jared? Did you have to go to dishonest? Is that really a collegial Canadian way to interact with your fellow photographers, some of whom have been comparing pics since way before you were born?

What you really meant to say is that you can't see a difference and don't think anyone else should be able to do so either. If you can't see a difference, fine and well, but don't try to drag down the rest of us who can.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm often not honest with myself when contemplating new camera purchases. My heart wants the highest possible resolution but my head tells me that I rarely email or post online images that are larger than 1,200 pixels across and that I only need to print 8x10's or at most 12x18 on rare occassions.

IMO, the argument that more resolution offers more cropping is weak. Why not invest in some better telephoto lenses if you are that serious about IQ? Or why not learn to compose better in-camera so you don't have crop afterwards?

I still maintain that if you downsample images from a 12MP, 16MP or 24MP to even a large JPG for web presentation that the differences will be negligible to non-existent. If they are noticed, then maybe you need to consider why the viewer would be pixel peeping rather than focusing on the subject matter.

Thats bacause deep down all of us in this forum are pixel peepers. Based on your response I would put you in the categoroy of a "closet pixel peeper".

I am an unabashed, unapologetic, full-bore, never-gonna-change pixel-peeper and very happy to be one!

Reilly, cameralabs is among the most respected photography review sites there is, and I've never seen this Guy with a testing agenda. At this point you appear to be getting angry with anyone who holds even a slightly different opinion from yourself. Making absolute categorical statements doesn't make them correct.

Sorry if it came over that way. We do tend to get worked up around here. Let ye without sin cast the first stone, etc. I think you have been enjoying the back and forth more than most if the number of threads you have started on this very subject are any indication. As well, we have seen a variety of categorical statements in this thread and many others. The underlying or overt premise of some of these posts is that the Nikon is simply doing a marketing gimmick and that everything is the same, we're seeing things that aren't there, we're being dishonest with ourselves, blah blah blah.

Well, I can state categorically or otherwise that things are indeed different and better, all things considered, as many of us have already noted. I shall have no hesitation in so saying, I hope in a manner consistent with Mako's blood pressure :^)

I'd never even heard of Cameralabs 'til now. Everyone who knows Nikon DSLRs well knows that the jpgs are okay at best, but not representative of the best the camera can produce. The respect factor you mention would have increased if he had shot raw and worked with the files a few minutes longer.

I've seen several reviews at this point that comport very well with the cameralabs one, which by the way, is NOT a negative review. If there weren't at least some truth to whats being reported, why are so many reviewers saying essentially the same thing?

Because most of the reviewers, even those that are fairly competent (including Cameralabs) don't have either the inclination or expertise to go to the near fanatic lengths that it takes to fairly evaluate cameras with the highest resolution sensors. Lengths that Thom Hogan routinely goes to, that DPR's reviews often go to, and that several of the Nikon forum's most expert photographers go to. While my first reply here was titled "Why I disagree with the verdict ..." I did acknowledge that Cameralabs' D7100 review was a decent one, one that's probably completely satisfactory for their readership base and probably good enough for most DPR readers as well. As DSLR sensor resolution increases (and it will), Cameralabs may go the extra mile but I won't fault them if they don't. The photographers that have the lenses, experience and shooting technique (Thom's "shot discipline") to realize all that the D7100 is able to produce already know the few extra bits that the review didn't touch on.

I'm enjoying the arguments, but I'm not getting angry about it, because either way I win. If the D7100 is dramatically better, then I'll be getting one, and having the enjoyment of a new, and somewhat different camera. On the other hand, if I come to think, as I have been coming to think in recent days that the improvements are small then I'll be happy to save the $1200.00.

The D7100 is better but not dramatically better, and it's not really better at the smaller apertures that are commonly used so you may as well save your money. I know what many others here know, that the D800e can produce better images than the D800, but in my eyes not by a dramatic margin so I saved several hundred dollars and bought the D800. While I have several of the "D800 approved" lenses, day to day I'm more likely to use good but less excellent lenses like the 24-85mm and 28-300mm VR lenses, and they wouldn't be able to take advantage of the D800e's charms.

In any event we can probably agree on one thing, which is that all three cameras are better than what Canon has on offer,no?

No. While I'm not a Canon fan, for several types of shooting some of their DSLRs and lenses are clearly superior to what Nikon has to offer. Do I really need to spell them out?

Also, not sure I would agree with your other comment that D7000 made us less attentive to exposure by virtue of being so forgiving. To the contrary, I find D7000 less predictable with exposure than any other Nikon I ever used (all originally released earlier than D7000), and so in my opinion D7000 actually demands more fiddling with exposure, especially in bright conditions, than was needed before it appeared.

point taken, but that sounds to me like an issue with metering, not the cleanliness of the D7000 imaging chain. It's well known that the D7000 likes to meter a bit hot for good OOC jpegs, and Matrix Metering's focal point bias and overall scene algorithms change frustratingly with every generation.

What I was specifically referring to was the way in which the D7000 doesn't appear to mind that much if you underexpose somewhat, or if you want to pull up shadows heavily in the attempt to make one-shot HDRs or try your hand at "ISOless" exposure methods. You see a lot of D7000 shots here with the EXIF data indicating that EC has been set at -1/2 or -2/3 stop permanently. One doesn't do that with a camera in which you're worried about noise in the shadows, rather that you're trying for a better OOC result.

In any case, we haven't reached a concensus on how even-handed the D7100's metering is. Almost guaranteed, though, we will find that in difficult lighting situations MM will give way to good ol' spot metering.

Latest in-depth reviews

Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.

No Nikon camera we've tested to date balances stills and video capture as well as the Nikon Z7. Though autofocus is less reliable than the D850, Nikon's first full-frame mirrorless gets enough right to earn our recommendation.

Nikon's Coolpix P1000 has moved the zoom needle from 'absurd' to 'ludicrous,' with an equivalent focal length of 24-3000mm. While it's great for lunar and still wildlife photography, we found that it's not suited for much else.

The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can't subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Nikon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.